Talk:Central Park jogger case: Difference between revisions

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

central park jogger gives 11,000 hits. Trisha Meili 1,000. So it should be moved back. BL 05:33, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. The current name conforms to our naming conventions. The Google Test is not the be all and end all of these things. Martin 20:25, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Technically the convictions were vacated because the court accepted new evidence namely the admission by Matias Reyes after statue of limitations had expired. A new trial was not sought by the District Attorney and there has never been a rexamination of the evidence by the court of the 1990 trial although the New York Police Department conducted their own review and concluded that the five were probably guilty as charged. [1] patsw 03:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of payment and/or moral reparations did the wrongly imprisoned group receive after they were freed? I think it is very important to describe this in the article since the whole story is not finished until the wronged ones are compensated!

This is a good point. There was no suit filed against the city for improper prosecution of the case. In the trial the defendants failed to show that their confessions were coereced. In a case against the city they would have to prove, sucessfully this time, that their confessions were coerced.

On the other hand, the defendants would have an excellent case if they sued Matias Reyes. However, it is doubtful they would receive large monetary damages from Reyes. patsw 14:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the men who were originally convicted have not been found to have been wrongfully convicted. Instead, their convictions were "vacated" in light of this other fellow's claim that he alone did the crime and that there is probable cause to believe he might have done it. None of these men have been exonerated and all of them can be seen on videotape joking about the jogger's injuries and describing in detail how their friends raped and abused her. It is not for any of us to know whether they are innocent or wrongfully convicted. Only they can know that. They're convictions were vacated in light of the new evidence and the DA decided against re-trial. There is some evidence that fellow who has confessed to the crime is mentally incompetant and that he did so to earn protection in prison or as a favor to one or more of the original defendants. I can't say whether that is true or not. All I do know is that the final truth on all of this will never be known. Let's hope Trisha lives a long and peaceful life and that the boys who have been released do the same.

How is Trisha Meili doing now? This article talks about her attack in Central park, but how is she doing now?

Excellent. This article is typical of Wikipedia's deficiencies. It is about a criminal case, with almost nothing about the person whose name heads the article. I even remember more about her from newspaper articles years ago, when her identity was revealed. Articles like these make Wikipedia's name a joke. 66.108.4.183 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason we have an article is because of the attack so it's not too surprising. It's really none of our business how she's doing nor is it likely to be of great interest of our readers and most importantly it probably hasn't been covered in a reliable source. This is an encylopedia. You could ask wikinews to try and interview her of course. If she had been notable after the event for example as a campaigner against violence against women for example then perhaps things would be different. But she's not Nil Einne 11:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had Nil Einne (11:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)), at all familiarized himself/herself with this case, he/she would not have written the preceding paragraph. Ms. Meili instituted a foundation to help victims of violence, and often speaks on their behalf. To claim that Wikipedia readers would not be interested in the fate of a woman who was raped, beaten so badly as to lose over 70 percent of her blood, and left for dead, is presumptuous at best. That Einne is indifferent or contemptuous of the victim’s fate is bad enough; to project that indifference or contempt onto most Wikipedia readers is bloodcurdlingly cold. And that Einne would deny that readers of an encyclopedia would want, ahem, encyclopedic information, is unwittingly comical.

“…and most importantly it probably hasn't been covered in a reliable source.”

But of course she was covered by “reliable sources.” When Ms. Meili revealed herself to whites in early April 2003, she was written up by every major newspaper in New York, and interviewed and profiled on national TV. (From the start, as part of a racist hate campaign, black media had constantly publicized the victims her name to their audience.)

Einne is clearly hostile towards the victim, but is not very good at rationalizing his/her hostility.

70.23.177.216 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)24 November 2006 7:32 p.m.[reply]